IIn retrospect, the 2018 World Cup in Russia looks like a gentle surrender, a small bow to its strong leader. Vladimir Putin and his Russian project of gradual conquest was certainly focused and valid eight years ago: the tournament showcased their nation and honored its leader with prominence.
This summer, we’ll see something entirely different, as the runup to this edition of the world’s biggest and most popular sporting event has become a monument to Donald Trump.
Despite its questionable human rights record, the 2034 edition is going to Saudi Arabia, giving the country’s de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman a chance to rebuild his and the kingdom’s image. FIFA has signaled reluctance to independently monitor Saudi Arabia’s treatment of migrant workers, suggesting that the construction of the tournament’s stadiums could be every bit as deadly as they were for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
Now, it has become clear that the World Cup needs protection from the various forces that are always pulling at it. So what now?
Break the World Cup. Take it apart into pieces, the way you might do with a monopoly that has become too powerful.
Some version of this is already happening, with the 2026 edition split between three countries, and the 2030 World Cup to be contested in Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay – that is, three. Continent.
I say: keep going. all the way. Play each group of the tournament in a different city or region spread around the world. A group in Paris. Another one in Rio de Janeiro. One in Tokyo. Sydney, Johannesburg, London, another in the Basque Country. Divide the knockout stages into three-game sets and spread them out around the world as well. Hold the semi-finals, finals and third-place match at a venue that wins some sort of bidding process, if you really must have one of those.
But carbon footprint, you might say. The thing is that participating countries are already flying to the host country from all over the world. If you equate a group’s location to the nearest intermediate distance to the teams in it, emissions from flights would probably not be meaningfully greater than forcing 48 teams to cross the entire continent.
And in the end the benefits will be worthwhile. The cost of staging an entire World Cup, which is on par with previous editions, has become so extraordinary that, increasingly, only the hosts have to plan to take advantage of that outlay for some other purpose. With a staggered tournament, the World Cup will no longer be so dependent on the will of the host nation. No single leader like Trump or Putin or Prince Mohammed will now be able to manipulate the tournament for his own selfish ends.
So decentralize it. The World Cup will remain the highest prize in the game, and will still fulfill many of FIFA’s stated goals: to grow the game in more regions; creating truly global benefits; Bringing the game within touching distance of more people.
FIFA argues that it has a duty to its 211-member federations to extract maximum revenue from the World Cup so that it can distribute all the money to its constituents. This complex provides cover for mortgage payment-sized ticket prices at this upcoming World Cup, and creates a permission structure to sign sponsorships questionable prediction market It appears that it is not operational or indeed licensed in most parts of the world.
The thing is, moving the World Cup doesn’t necessarily cut revenues. Simply assigning a group of a few games to each host city or region will create a premium to be paid by organizers. When there are only three or four there are no bad, undesirable games.
We already have an example here. The 2020 European Championships, which were postponed to next summer due to the COVID-19 pandemic, were spread across 11 European cities. That tournament was broadly successful, before the final at Wembley Stadium was stormed by fans without tickets. It was interesting in its diversity, scoring the most goals per game in Euro history and could have set an attendance record if there had not been pandemic-related limits on crowd sizes.
Why not apply that model here? The best way to save the World Cup from its cultural clout and the social currency it provides may be to remake it.
-
This is an excerpt from Soccer with Jonathan Wilson, a weekly look from Guardian US at the game in Europe and beyond, run by Leander in Jonathan’s absence this week. Subscribe for free here. Do you have a question for Jonathan? Email soccerwithjw@theguardian.com, and he will provide the best answer in a future edition.
-
Leander Charlekens is a Guardian US contributor whose book on the United States men’s national soccer team, The Long Game, will be released on May 12. you can Preorder it here. He teaches at Marist University.
